Could Elmwood Place and Norwood be saved by merging with Cincinnati? A new study from a conservative think tank says "yes."

A study by Aaron Renn with the New York-basedManhattan Institute argues that "inner-ring" suburbs with falling populations and declining household income could benefit by dropping their borders with bigger cities.

Renn specially called out Elmwood Place and Norwood, but listed 11 other municipalities bordering Cincinnati that have gotten poorer and less populous since 2000: Addyston, Arlington Heights, Cheviot, Fairfax, Golf Manor, Lockland, North College Hill, Reading, Silverton, St. Bernard and Indian Hill.

That's right. According to Renn's numbers gathered from census data, Indian Hill's population has shrunk 1.4 percent and household income in the village has declined 8.5 percent since 2000.Only Amberley, Madeira, Mariemont and Wyoming haven't declined.

He suggests that states should help by incentivizing suburbs, helping with transition costs and even absorbing liabilities like unfunded pension burdens.

But what benefits would Cincinnati receive?

"To the extent that central cities want to be perceived as good regional citizens, they have an incentive to agree to a merger, particularly when the merger is strongly supported by the state government," Renn writes.

However, Cincinnati hasn't annexed a village or town in over 100 years. The last major addition to the city was Kennedy Heights in 1914. And the idea of dissolving a town is almost never popular with voters. In 2009, Amelia voters rejected the notion two to one.

The Manhattan Institute was founded in 1977. It advocated supply-side economics, and more recently argued against the Obama-era Affordable Care Act.